Well, I've been married three times and I know that it is possible even if unusual. The key is that men and women hit sexual peaks at different ages and so if a young man, say 25, hooks up with an older woman, say 38, and the two live away from their respective families then the sex can be awesome and ongoing. Daring and imagination do help things along. The downside is that these relationships generally don't produce babies.

I've been married almost 7 years, have a full time job, and two young kids, and just recently my wife and I decided that sex should be as awesome as it was when we met. Our average over the last two weeks has been >1 hour long session per day.:)

Put the effort in to make it awesome, and you can avoid the sexless marriage cliche.

That's fine assuming your wife is in agreement and you're both at the same sexual level. As much as I enjoy sex and would be happy to experience it at least weekly, if your wife isn't interested then it won't matter.

When I attempted to romance my wife, I got laughter. She was just not that into romance. It made it difficult to get her in the mood. At the end, it was impossible and we spent the last two years of our marriage without sex (the prior three years, sex was down to about twice a year).

Definitions:1. Fighting a tough enemy against your own will. (Movie Definition)2. You/Friend(s) about to sleep with someone nasty3. Taking a shit

The question "If I was to be killed by science-fiction villains, I'd rather:" kind of assumes you're going to die. I'd rather re-word it, I would prefer: "If a science-fiction villain were to attempt to kill me I'd rather:"

Narfle the garthok seems to give me more of a fighting chance than the other alternatives. Arguably I've narfled the garthok in several different ways, and I'm still here.

I was referring to the gut-spilling caused by being chopped up by cannibals.I should have used "is a lot better than" instead of "outweighs". (but/. doesn't allow editing of posts afterwards to correct typos that you only notice after posting)

Yes, but you will only be conscious for up to 15 seconds, during which time I doubt anybody would be farting just yet. This article [geoffreylandis.com] is the best I've seen on explaining what happens when exposed to a vacuum. Probably not that unpleasant of a way to go.

I would have to go with the Python's "Meaning of Life" method of execution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLctf4o6feQ [youtube.com](NSFW)You may have to watch this over and over to really appreciate the subtle nuances of the dialogue and cinematography.Turning down the sound helps - as does slow motion.

Locked into a time machine travelling forward at a decent enough clip that I'd get to watch the universe evolve sufficiently before starving to death. Assume an adequate air supply. Travelling backward to watch the Big Bang would also suffice.

With sci-fi you can pick very fast ways to die, i.e. because some retard stepped over a butterfly some millons of years ago in a time travel hunting expedition, or Picard didn't figured Q's riddle, or you didn't manage to engage your parents playing Johnny B. Goode . At least, if "timelines changed so you never existed" accounts as death.

There are too many ways to intentionally dying in sci-fi, some taken for an advantage, that there is no need of villains for getting killed, you may want it to happen. Tel